Rationale:
As I've gained more knowledge of production technique, I've been reflecting on some advice I received earlier in my endeavors. "Trust your ears." It comes in many flavors: as long as it sounds good, do what the track needs, do it kinda like this and then really listen to your ears, etc...

Lately, it's starting to feel like a cop-out. If I make myself receptive instruction (not everyone is all the time) and am told "trust your ears"... what have I been taught? I'm the student because my ears haven't been trained, developed, or tuned and I'm asking YOU, teacher! If I knew what "correct" sounded like, I'd just go to my perfectly calibrated "A" studio basement, close my eyes, and play with knobs until I got it right. The idea of "proper technique" would then be ludicrous! Eventually, I'd remember what did what, develop a method, and I'd make my own 'lil mental cookbook... no need to write it down, if my hearing changes I'll make it all up again! Surely, the an entire industry isn't winging it!

... okay ... that's enough of reduction ad absurdum.

Topic:
It's obvious there has to be some kind of "standard procedure." It's obvious to some that common situations must give rise to common patterns in how mixing / mastering tasks are approached. If I pay to attend an accredited institution and learn music production, I honestly believe they'd have more reliable lessons than "trust your ears." Is it unreasonable to expect an accredited institution to provide a better foundation than suggesting students "trust their ears"? Music teachers don't tell their students to play some keys and "trust their ears" until a scale happens. There's a proper way to use a histogram in digital photography, a correct way to prepare video for broadcast television. Common techniques must exist to match the tools for mixing and mastering tasks! So, what are they? If no vocabulary exists to describe these techniques and enable a discussion of mixing aesthetics, can we create it?

Rephrasing:
Assume I will never audition music in an "A" or "B" studio, my setup cannot be calibrated or made reference quality, but I have every audio analysis tool available to me (spectrograph, x-y plot, fft analysis, oscilloscope, etc.). What concepts & techniques can I consider to consistently elevate my production value towards the realm of industry respected quality?

This is not a request for personal assistance. The "I" above is hypothetical. This is an attempt to create a taxonomy of mixing theory and technique (not tips) here at TPF.

The above statements have been edited to reflect the current state of the topic. If you require the original text of this post, request a copy via DM.

As the aforementioned post said, it takes years of practice and listening (in an ideal acoustic environment).  The thing about "industry standards" is that there is usually a mastering engineering behind the scenes who has done his hours and can take a track and bring it to the next level--there is no denying the skill and meticulous sound design involved in their practice.  That's if you wish to immediately make the jump to have a professional sounding track.

On the other hand, if you would rather release songs without involvement of an engineer (due to budget or otherwise), I suggest you start treating your room acoustically (if you haven't already).  I highly recommend it otherwise working you'll be extremely limited in what you can accurately hear.  Treating my room has done WONDERS for me and I can guarantee you the same if done properly.  There are many resources online that you can look into.

Another tip would be to reference tracks that are of "Industry Standard".  Load the cleanest track you know into your DAW and analyze it alongside your own.  Make sure it is of similar volume.  Analyze it as whole and analyze certain frequency ranges.  Compare your low end, mids, highs, etc.  Compare the mid/side relationship.  Compare every element.  By studying professional tracks, you will close the gap slowly but surely.

Be patient, the road is long but it is worth it.  Hope that helps.

Quote from: iAmXan on January 14, 2016, 08:35:30 am

As the aforementioned post said, it takes years of practice and listening (in an ideal acoustic environment).  The thing about "industry standards" is that there is usually a mastering engineering behind the scenes who has done his hours and can take a track and bring it to the next level--there is no denying the skill and meticulous sound design involved in their practice.  That's if you wish to immediately make the jump to have a professional sounding track.

On the other hand, if you would rather release songs without involvement of an engineer (due to budget or otherwise), I suggest you start treating your room acoustically (if you haven't already).  I highly recommend it otherwise working you'll be extremely limited in what you can accurately hear.  Treating my room has done WONDERS for me and I can guarantee you the same if done properly.  There are many resources online that you can look into.

Another tip would be to reference tracks that are of "Industry Standard".  Load the cleanest track you know into your DAW and analyze it alongside your own.  Make sure it is of similar volume.  Analyze it as whole and analyze it certain frequency ranges.  Compare your low end, mids, highs, etc.  Compare the mid/side relationship.  Compare every element.  By studying professional tracks, you will close the gap slowly but surely.

Be patient, the road is long but it is worth it.  Hope that helps.

What do you mean by "done his hours." Can you describe some of the technique a mastering engineer is taught? What is "their practice" to you?

As I mentioned before, assume I cannot create an ideal acoustic environment.

Also, I'm not asking for personal assistance. I'm making an (thus far, relatively poor) attempt to compile a library of industry technique pro bono (for the benefit of the members of TPF).

By "done his hours", I mean the mastering engineering has accumulated thousands of hours upon hours of work.  A typical well respected mastering engineer who is capable of critical listening and applying the tools as you desire has, under most circumstances, completed and worked on many high quality songs throughout his career.  Many have attended the accredited institutions you have mentioned beforehand.  Some have not.  Regardless, they have worked for a long time in this field and have honed their craft to a point where they are capable of producing material that is of "industry standard".

Allow me to first clarify that I am not a mastering engineer by any means.  I have not attended institutions nor have I studied under one.  Techniques will vary upon subject.  In one scenario, one might apply multiband compression to tighten the low end of a track.  In another, one might add a high shelf EQ to boost the high end of an otherwise dull sound.  Applications will vary from engineer to engineer and every single one of them will process different tracks in different ways--it really is an art.  One engineer might use a high shelf EQ, another might prefer to apply Aphex Aural Exciter by Waves to achieve a similar goal.

"Their practice" simply refers to the art of audio engineering (mixing/mastering/etc.).

To add to your compilation, I highly recommend searching for Ian Shepherd's articles and videos.  He, himself, is a mastering engineer and offers free resources online.  Check him out.

Thank you for your reply. If you'd like to continue this discussion, assume the hypothetical "I" is deaf. I am not deaf, and do not mean to insult or disrespect the hearing impaired.

Also, please refrain from posting to refute the rationale of this topic. If that is your contribution, kindly discuss it elsewhere. I'm not asking for personal assistance. I'm making an (thus far, relatively poor) attempt to compile a library of industry technique pro bono (for the benefit of the members of TPF).

The best analogy for mixing I've found is a food chef.  They take a variety of ingredients and using their techniques and methods, create a tasteful dish which others can enjoy.   While the fundamental ingredients may be the same, it's their taste factor combined with their recipe which makes their dish special.

Going back to what seems to be your goal about providing a resource of basic techniques, there are so many tutorials available that tell you how to use a knife or what temperature things should be baked at that I'm not sure another one is needed.  It's far more interesting to find how how someone got to their end goal and realize that what works for them may not work for you but it can inspire you to forge your own path and discover a new method.  It bears mentioning again that unless you have that all-important "taste" factor then no amount of knowing basic technique will make you a master chef.

The best analogy for mixing I've found is a food chef.  They take a variety of ingredients and using their techniques and methods, create a tasteful dish which others can enjoy.   While the fundamental ingredients may be the same, it's their taste factor combined with their recipe which makes their dish special.

Going back to what seems to be your goal about providing a resource of basic techniques, there are so many tutorials available that tell you how to use a knife or what temperature things should be baked at that I'm not sure another one is needed.  It's far more interesting to find how how someone got to their end goal and realize that what works for them may not work for you but it can inspire you to forge your own path and discover a new method.  It bears mentioning again that unless you have that all-important "taste" factor then no amount of knowing basic technique will make you a master chef.

Great response! +1 I chose the cookbook analogy for this reason exactly. I have friends who can cook very well... but they all lack the precision and reproducibility that 1 or 2 other friends have whom have been to culinary school. They even use different vocabulary. I'm trying set aside the people that would "thicken it up with flour & a 'lil butter" and speak with those who would "prepare a roux." Reading cookbooks and following recipes is great... just like cover bands playing the music of other artists. Still, I don't think anyone would recommend that over attending a music conservatory (given equal opportunity).

Maybe typing "basic" was a bad idea... I meant only the distilled, basic form of an concept. Advanced technique is welcome too.

Also, I do think "taste" is mainly a consideration during composition. The judicious use of flavor profile enhancers (VSTs) and spices (FX) can make anyone seem like a good chef. When it's time to bake (mix/master), knowledge of leaveners & altitude conversions are necessary that have very little to do with taste.

This forum is already a resource for elementary technique. We have threads in many areas: Understanding Compressors, Multi-Band Compressors, Pink Noise Mixing, Equal Loudness Contours, Sub Bass, Stereo Separation, Clipping, Headroom... and each of them definitely deserves the attention they are receiving. Where these topics are "deep" in discussion, I am trying to make a resource that's "wide"... with a gracious nod to the "depth" in the other topics.

I wish I had better terms to use than "glossary" or "index"... lexicon maybe?

Everyone here saying 'trust your ears' and 'practice' is correct. I know you're going to respond to me talking about industry-quality methods and how you're not really looking for anything besides a compilation of industry procedures, but that literally doesn't exist beyond anything you should have learned in your first 5-6 months of producing (provided you worked hard and did your research) Sure, you'll always learn little things here and there, tools to compliment your toolbox, but there really are no secrets beyond using things that sound good and processing things to maximize their potential as an element in the mix(compression, EQ, reverb/del, effects). I will try my best to list to you a few things that nearly all professional producers think about when making a track that you will later consider to be 'professional quality' even though the only real thing that makes it professional quality is that you decided you liked the sound of it, and saw that other people did too. I'm saving the obvious shit that I assume you know already because I'm taking you seriously (how to EQ, use compressors, meticulous sound selection etc)

1. Rolling off high frequencies in most sounds. All that high end can kill the energy of your track, and make it hit a limiter like a chainsaw. High end always sounds better with than without on a solo'ed channel, but most sounds have these frequencies and they stack quickly. If you notice most professional tracks aren't actually 'crisp' because of the high end but are crisp because there is good frequency seperation between sounds, as well as distinction using the stereo field.

2.spending shit loads of time on getting the right kick sound. Way, way too much time has to be spent getting this right. So much so that a lot of producers have 2-3 kicks in a few different keys and tend to stick with them for most tracks. A Kick can seriously ruin your track, so a lot of producers just use ones that their other producer friends gave them cause they work and its not worth fking with.

3. spending shitloads of time getting the right noise risers, impacts & fx sounds. Most professional tracks have way fucking more of these layered into it than your brain cares to recognize, because it's all just variations of fuzz and static anyways. but it's huge for tension and release. Making these things sound right can be a very meticulous process especially with the amount of layering it takes to really maximize tension and release sometimes. A lot of beginner producers spend a bit of time putting some sweeps on the track and thing that it'll do, but this stage is really important to the point that a lot of producers save it for the mixdown to even add these, and give it shitloads of time and energy.


4. writing a good song. Dont read this and think "ugh, this guy thinks he's conceptual." It's true. Most of these people around forums like this (no offense guys I love you and I'm here too ) are over-involved in the mixing process to the point where they aren't even thinking about music half as much as they should. Seriously, good music that feels well mixed only feels that way because it invokes an emotional response, and shit music is never going to do that. So basically shit song, shit mix no matter what. not REALLY, a song can still be technically mixed well, but a listener will percieve it as boring and badly mixed if the song is fucking boring and bad. There are even lots of amazing songs with shit mixes that people enjoy and pay for because they don't care about the mix. The song is enough to make them move. In the end consumers don't even know what a good mix sounds like, they just know when they respond emotionally to a song, same as a good dish or painting. They aren't aware of the process.


5. Gain staging and makin shit louder. Just figure it out. making sure your mix has energy and punch is important, as is making sure that your mix isn't smashed against a brickwall like a crushed bug. This is something that practice will make perfect over anything else, because the effects can be subtle on individual channels but cumulatively define the energy of your track. This is probably the hardest thing in production, in my opinion, and destroys a lot of peoples tracks for years as they never make a huge, specific effort to improve and listen to their decisions critically, and learn from them. So the best advice I have is to watch tutorials of professional artists and take cues from their compressor settings on certain sounds, observe how they sound, and bear in mind that they have a solid master on the track and that does change your perception of it.

6. Get someone else to master your shit. I'm aware that there are professional artists out there who master their own shit. I know they do. Don't worry about them. Don't do it if you are trying to have your music taken seriously on a commercial level. Those people who do it themselves are probably better than you. Just deal with it and if you want to master your own shit, get a proper room and learn the science. If you don't want to do that then spend a lot of time trying to make it sound right and hopefully get it as good as possible. But do not confuse what you did with the mastering process because you didn't master for shit. It's a different world and chances are you know very little about it. (even those guys who 'master their own shit' are actually often doing what is called a premaster where they kind of sort of master it themselves and then send it off to someone who makes sure it works)


Those things are pretty standard across the board for professional electronic and EDM producers. I think that's about as standard as things will get, bro. Hope it was any degree of help to you and good luck with your productions!

Quote from: Droptopus on January 15, 2016, 04:25:35 pm

I'm saving the obvious shit that I assume you know already because I'm taking you seriously (how to EQ, use compressors, meticulous sound selection etc)

This maybe isn't as obvious as it seems. When you don't know a lot about production, but you do know that there are stages to making music, you can easily fall into the trap of settling for something that sucks because you assume it will suck less once you're done layering, EQing, compressing and mixing it. There's also a temptation when you're new that inclines you to move onto another part of the track before you should, because that way you feel like you're making progress. I guess I'm projecting from personal experience here, but I expect other people have come up against the same thing.

I almost feel like the root sounds you start with are more important than any process or technique that follows. And yeah, it may seem obvious once you state it like that, but doing it otherwise isn't always a conscious decision.

The other thing I was going to say is, awesome tips. Props. Number 3 particularly is interesting, kinda confirms a hunch I had about auxiliary stuff in a mix..

As I noted in another thread:

This is important for the whole soundscape. Typically you'll have a few melodies that make up the bulk but need other things i.e white noise, foley sounds, fx vocals to fill the background and entire soundscape. This is essential to giving your track depth and filling out all frequencies.

To me, the take-away from this thread is that you should trust your ears, and I feel like it's not been made clear enough that there's really no clear line that separates "industry-standard", "top producers", "professional tracks" from the rest of the world, no sudden insights and industry secrets kept from novices. It's a lot more like adulthood instead, which (attention young people: spoilers!) we all kinda fake. An entire world is indeed winging it to a certain extent.

This fetishization of having fool proof methods to succeed and achieve "professional quality" is a detraction.